RE: Wong Kim Ark
Citizenship under the 14th Amendment includes those born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens BASED ON THE ABOVE PRECEDENT.
The Court then, held that a person born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who, at the time, were not permitted to naturalize as U.S. citizens nonetheless became a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
As the Court then explained, [t]o hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
Only if the parents have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child's birth in the U.S.
Gray was very specific in the ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative""The single question" asked and answered:
Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. According to the DoJ, his authorized "Temporary Stay" was set to expire on August 9, 1961, just 5 days after Obama's birth. Note the title of the form: